Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly describes the informational output (source, date, licence, citation) and the intent to read provenance, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only metadata tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences deliver the tool's purpose and content with no filler. The title reinforces the same message without redundant repetition in the description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter provenance lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists exactly what information will be returned and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs to provide no parameter meanings; it fully covers what an agent needs to understand before invoking the tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (MowRouteWorks dataset), a clear function (provide provenance), and the concrete content (source, date computed, licence, citation). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which address columns, comparison, rows, search, stats, and top-level summaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit context: use this when attributing a figure correctly. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the zero-parameter, resource-specific nature of the tool makes the intended use clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.